The Penta Podcast Channel

Reputation, Regulation and Relationships: What’s driving policymaker priorities in 2025

• Penta

Share episode

On this week’s episode of What’s at Stake, Penta Policy Brand Research leaders Rebecca Cunningham and Victoria Nolte join hosts Bryan DeAngelis and Ylan Mui to unpack findings from the 2025 Washington Insights Review, an annual Penta report based on a survey of hundreds of senior Washington policymakers

Their conversation covered:

  • Which issues are shaping U.S. policymaker priorities across parties, from the economy and immigration to AI, fintech, and China.
  • How corporate reputation in Washington has shifted post-COVID, and what’s driving both the rise of emerging sectors and the reputational slip of legacy industries.
  • Why companies must tailor their advocacy to resonate authentically with policymakers, and how social commitments are being evaluated differently across political parties.
  • The rising importance of data-backed, bipartisan engagement strategies that reflect political durability in a shifting landscape.


Bryan DeAngelis:

Welcome to this week's episode of what's at State. I'm your host, Brian DeAngelis, partner and head of the Washington office here at Penta.

Ylan Mui:

And I'm Ilan Mui, managing director at Penta.

Bryan DeAngelis:

And today we're thrilled to be joined by Penta's own senior director, rebecca Cunningham, and managing director Victoria Nololte, to discuss data from the newest edition of the Washington Insights Review. The Washington Insights Review is our annual report based on hundreds of conversations with policymakers, highlighting their top priorities and providing key insights about how our clients and partners can improve their engagement with public sector officials. Rebecca and Victoria have been digging into the latest data and developing customized reports for individual clients and industry needs. They're here today to unpack some of the high level themes and trends from 2025 that can help organizations refine their engagement strategies. Rebecca and Victoria, welcome to what's at Stake.

Rebecca Cunningham:

Thank you, really excited to be here. Thanks for having us.

Bryan DeAngelis:

Let's jump into the discussion, maybe by breaking down how this whole process works. So maybe I'll ask you, victoria, walk us through kind of the methodology and the work you all are doing here with this report.

Victoria Nolte:

Yeah, absolutely so.

Victoria Nolte:

Every single year for over the past decade now we have gone out and gathered feedback directly from senior policymakers across Washington around their perceptions of corporate engagement and advocacy with them in their offices.

Victoria Nolte:

In terms of the actual audience we're looking at here, I mentioned senior policymakers.

Victoria Nolte:

These are real in-seat senior policymakers across the federal agencies the White House, capitol Hill who are giving their quantitative and qualitative feedback to us every single year about what their perceptions are around how companies are engaging in Washington and across the country. We go out every single year with an online survey about across 1,500 policymakers at the federal level to gauge their perceptions again around everything from long-term reputation across companies with the policymaker audience to the actual specifics of their engagement and how effective it is Everything from lobbying engagement to how the voices of their senior executives are breaking through broader communications to things like the specific messages that they're putting out there. We then go out in the summertime frame with qualitative one-on-one interviews with that same exact audience to really dig into the nuances behind the trends we're seeing in the quantitative and to really dig into the why behind some of the things we're seeing there. So, overall, you know it's a syndicated annual research study with those two. You know the quantitative and qualitative pieces each year across the senior, most policymaking audience in Washington.

Bryan DeAngelis:

And you mentioned. It's been going on for 10 years, so you've seen busy years like this one, I'm sure before, where it seems like we have, you know, a different issue as the news of the day. But maybe taking a step back, what I like about this research is we can get into the head of the policymakers a little bit more and really understand what some of the top issues are, that kind of motivate them throughout the year. So kind of looking at this year's data, what is the sort of top issues driving policymakers?

Victoria Nolte:

Yeah, and I'll also turn over to Rebecca to talk through some of the specifics that are breaking through in our data around that. I will say you know some of them do have very heavy overlap with the major issues that have been driving conversations. You know, around the 2024 elections, these bigger national conversations we're seeing around economy, immigration. But Rebecca can speak more to what we're seeing in our data this year.

Rebecca Cunningham:

Yeah, when we asked senior policymakers what they viewed to be the most pressing issue facing the nation this year, 50% of our respondents said the economy was in their top three, which is completely understandable given the current economic climate. A lot of them were pointing to cost of living and inflation as the top two issues within the economy that they thought was really important. Where it gets really interesting is where the parties start to disagree, because the economy is number one for both Democrats and Republicans. When we looked at Democrats specifically, they're looking at health care as the number two issue, most pressing issue facing the nation this year. That's actually a new thing that popped up in this year's data.

Rebecca Cunningham:

Last year, interestingly, reproductive rights was the number one issue, outpacing even the economy with Democrats. So I think that drives a lot of the perceptions and conversations that we saw in 2024 around Democrats' focus on the Dobbs decision. When we looked at Republicans again, the economy is their number one issue, but this year national security really popped into the number two spot in a really interesting way. That's closely followed by immigration, which I think is an interesting kind of one-two, right after the economy, where Republicans are looking to security abroad and security at home when they're considering the issues of the day when they're considering the issues of the day.

Ylan Mui:

What did you also find about China? I know that that's something that clearly both Democrats and Republicans are worried about, but Republicans have also been particularly focused on that. It seems like.

Rebecca Cunningham:

Yeah, definitely. We can ask this question in a couple of different ways, and one of the ways we asked is just like what is the number one, most pressing issue? When we asked that question to Republicans, the economy was still the number one issue that they put there, but competition with China came in really closely as well, practically tied with national security. So when we ask Republicans to say what is the one thing you're going to pick, most of them are still picking the economy, but a large portion of them are also pointing to competition with China as well.

Ylan Mui:

Yeah, and definitely related issues, but I also wanted to ask about social issues, because those have been top of mind for many companies recently, especially given some of the shifts that we've seen regarding DEI and ESG. What does the data tell us about how policymakers perceive corporations, based on their response to some of those social issues?

Rebecca Cunningham:

Yeah, of course DEI is a question that we ask every single year and understandably, it's become very divided based on how the different parties want the corporations to engage. Right Democrats continue to see DEI as a really central corporate credibility question, while Republicans have a little bit more mixed sentiment around that. When we asked policymakers to place an importance on DEI, 30% said it was extremely important and 30% said it was very important. So about 60% are still looking to companies to engage in diversity in some way in their workforce diversity in some way in their workforce. Democrats were much more likely, understandably, to see it as extremely or very important. This is something that we saw also with our qualitative interviews at the end of last year that Victoria mentioned, where policymakers are still looking for companies to make those commitments but potentially framing it in a slightly different way. So we're really excited to dig into that later this year as well with our qualitative research to understand how policymakers are seeing a shift with that.

Rebecca Cunningham:

When we look at Republicans, there is a lower level of support for DEI initiatives, with only 25% seeing as extremely important and 27% seeing it as very important. That's also mirrored with some of our findings about corporate commitments, where Republicans want corporations to stay in a little bit more limited role and engage really in the areas that they see the business interacting. So when there are corporate commitments, either in DEI or other kind of corporate social responsibility areas, they want companies to connect it to the mission of the business. It can't be some initiative that doesn't necessarily connect to that mission. It needs to be connected either to the industry or the work that the company is engaging in.

Ylan Mui:

How does that all add up to the way that policymakers view corporations more broadly? Are you seeing any changes in the reputation of companies in Washington?

Rebecca Cunningham:

Yeah, I'll let Victoria speak to this a little bit more, but I think it's a very interesting part of how policymakers evaluate companies. Every single year, we ask policymakers what is a determining factor in how they evaluate individual companies. Corporate social responsibility and business ethics are two metrics that we track, and we find that those metrics are really closely related to how they view the reputation of the business. If a company is not seen as an ethical business, they're not going to be seen with a strong reputation. So it's kind of the floor that a company has to clear in order to be effective in Washington.

Victoria Nolte:

Yeah, and to Rebecca's point as well, I think the lens through which policymakers on each side of the aisle are thinking about corporate social responsibility has changed pretty dramatically in the past couple of years To what Rebecca mentioned before, just in terms of Republicans really wanting to see companies make commitments that are much more in line with the business and have a very distinct and clear tie back to the business case for why they're investing in these things. You know, a lot of what we hear from Republicans is that, yeah, you know if a tech company is coming in and they're telling me about the good work they're doing, you know, on sustainability, sure it's interesting, but you know if they're a tech company, they make a tech company. For example, they make widgets or apps. If they come in and talk about, okay, sustainability in our data centers, that makes sense, that resonates, that comes across as really authentic. It's not dissimilar from what we hear from Democrats too, just in terms of really wanting to see companies come in and talk about things and talk about these commitments that they're making in a way that is authentic and is reflective of who they are as a company and of their corporate identity as well. Back to the point about. They want this authenticity. They want to see that it's really genuine and that the company is not just committing to it for show. It just looks a little bit different in terms of the resonance with Democrats and Republicans and to your question, ilan, about how we're seeing that play out in terms of overall corporate reputation, it has had a massive impact on the way that policymakers on both sides of the aisle are viewing companies and their ability to be effective when they come in to engage with policymakers.

Victoria Nolte:

Over the course of COVID, starting in around like 2019, 2020, we saw companies increasingly step up. You saw companies making commitments around DEI companies increasingly step up. You saw companies making commitments around DEI, around ESG, around other community-based programs, increasingly committing to those, both financially in terms of the actual programs themselves and then in terms of the way that they were going out and messaging around them in a way that was very proactive, very intentional, very large scale that we hadn't really seen before. I think you look back to 2018 or so and it was still a relatively newish thing for companies to be going out in a very concerted way to talk to policymakers specifically about their commitments and communities through things like one pagers and all these tactics that today are now, you know, pretty, pretty standard and everyone's doing them. It was relatively newer back, you know, a couple of years ago.

Victoria Nolte:

Through COVID, as companies were doing that, we saw the overall corporate reputation increase.

Victoria Nolte:

That was on both sides of the aisle.

Victoria Nolte:

We saw those initiatives resonating with both Democrats and Republicans. And then last year what we actually saw was a pretty dramatic drop in the overall corporate reputation. A lot of that was driven by Democrats seeing companies pull back on a lot of the commitments that they'd made in the years prior and sort of a dissatisfaction with the way they had first seen companies really step up, really go out there, really go to bat for things that Democrats care about, you know, dei, esg issues, et cetera. And then this sharp pullback as we got closer and closer to the election and that overall drop in corporate reputation, and, again, you know, mostly driven by Democrats, but we saw it across the board overall, even, you know, among Republicans as well, and that continued into this year. And so now where that positions us is at this new lower normal for lack of a better phrase for overall corporate effectiveness. In Washington Companies are having a harder time breaking through again, partially because the reputation and effectiveness is just lower, but also because of the very busy and noisy environment we find ourselves in.

Bryan DeAngelis:

Yeah, speaking of that, rebecca, I want to go a little bit deeper on this and think about innovation and regulation, which we deal with all the time here, right, two areas where policymakers have to balance some of their competing priorities. With this as the backdrop, how are policymakers approaching industries like AI, fintech We've seen a lot of action on crypto. How should companies in these industries be thinking about their approach in balancing these two factors?

Rebecca Cunningham:

Yeah, definitely. I think there's a really interesting theme coming through specifically with innovation and regulation. When we asked policymakers which sectors do they think will experience the greatest growth in the next three years, fintech was overwhelmingly the top issue, with 32% of respondents pointing to fintech as the industry that's going to have a lot of growth. A lot of that, we think is driven by a lot more conversations around crypto this year, as well as other new fintech companies coming onto the scene a little bit more strongly. That's actually being tied together with policymakers pointing to fintech as the area that they also want to impose the most regulation in the next year. So there's an excitement about the opportunity and the growth that the industry and fintech. It comes in contrast with policymakers looking to provide guardrails for the industry. One thing we're looking into this year in our qualitative interviews is what are those regulations going to look like and who are policymakers looking to to help them write these regulations? Similarly, ai is an area that we're seeing a lot of policymakers point to as an area of growth and also an area of regulation.

Rebecca Cunningham:

But when we talk to senior policymakers, they're very aware of what they don't know. They know both are really new sectors. They know both are really primed for a lot of change and they need those guardrails in place. But they also need someone and we tell this to a lot of our clients and we see a lot of companies trying to do that helping explain AI and helping explain what a fintech company is and what type of fintech company it is to policymakers. Where we've seen policymakers be really appreciative of this kind of corporate engagement is helping them understand the really complex technicalities of these new and complicated industries. They know what a big bank is, they know how to engage with that, but they're not as sure how to engage with these newer companies and they want and need a guide to help them kind of craft those guardrails.

Bryan DeAngelis:

And are you seeing this on both sides of the aisle? You know, maybe for different reasons to bring that regulatory approach, but pretty bipartisan support.

Rebecca Cunningham:

Democrats are pointing to AI as their number one issue at a slightly higher volume than Republicans are, but both are still pointing to AI and fintech as areas for both growth and regulation in the past. In the next year, when we do some of our other Penta research on sentiment the policymakers are talking about specifically on social media, we found that there's a lot more optimism with Republicans on, especially crypto, but Democrats are a little bit more wary and want to see a little bit more of those protections put in place, particularly for the consumers, for the consumers.

Victoria Nolte:

Yeah, I would also add in Rebecca made this point a little bit already but it's this intersection that we've seen so many times before between the sectors that are seen as really being the most innovative, the most cutting edge, and then those that are seen as needing the most additional regulation and oversight because there are no current guardrails. I mean, I think a really good example of this in the closest parallel would probably be social media in the early days of things like content guidelines and things like that for platforms like YouTube and Instagram and all of those. We've seen this many times before. I think, what policymakers have consistently told us over the years, in addition to what Rebecca had mentioned around needing a guide, needing someone to show them and tell them what this looks like, what this means, because, again to the point, you know they know how to engage with the big bank. They don't know how to engage quite yet with an open AI, a chat, gpt and those others.

Victoria Nolte:

The other thing that has been really really impactful is where industry is able to come out proactively with almost like self-setting industry standards and that gives an opportunity for those companies that willingly come out and do that, or for those groups of companies if they decide to form an association, to do so gives an opportunity for them to shape what the future looks like for them before someone else shapes it for them. So that's something that policymakers very consistently mentioned as being both somewhat admirable, but then also helpful from companies is where they're able to come out and say we know our industry better than you, because this industry is so new and no one really knows it yet. But here's how we would really think about regulating this, in a way that makes sense and allows us to continue to push forward on the innovation front, while also having the guardrails that are needed to keep consumers safe.

Ylan Mui:

So the approach of we want to work with you rather than just hands off, yes, yeah, seems like that's helpful. I'm curious. That sounds like a really effective approach. I'm curious about what other types of engagement strategies you're hearing about from policymakers that are most effective, if that has changed at all. I mean, obviously, in the current environment, as you all were saying earlier, it's so noisy, it's hard to get noticed, and right now, many companies are seeing not very high levels of reputational respect, perhaps from policymakers. So what are some of the things that they can do that are effective to stand out, get notice and to be able to share their story and share their information?

Victoria Nolte:

Yeah, so there are a couple of things that come to mind Number one channels. So we have seen some shifts and I know that everyone who's been paying attention to the election and national news and everything over the past couple of years has noticed the rise of things like podcasts, which we now find ourselves. There is an increase in some of these non-traditional channels and policymakers, especially on the Republican side of the aisle paying attention to them. That said, that has not eroded the amount of usage that policymakers are still getting out of more traditional sources. When we ask policymakers how are you shaping your decisions? What information sources are you using? A lot of them are still very much looking to one, those trusted traditional national media sources. And again, it looks a little bit different for Republicans versus Democrats in terms of what those specific channels and publications are. But they're first looking to the national news sources, then they're looking to research and white papers and more of that academic sort of lens, and then also to actual government sources, sources from agencies and more of that academic sort of lens, and then also to actual government sources, sources from agencies and things like that. So there's a little bit of a balance between some of these more cutting edge channels, while still needing to leverage these traditional channels as well.

Victoria Nolte:

I would also say, in terms of what's breaking through and being effective, everything has gotten so hyper-targeted. You have a lot of companies, a lot of associations who are out there using you know. Just being able to target down to this is a specific person and the network of influence around them who we want to reach. We know when and where and how to reach these folks when we want to hit them with this message here in DC versus back in the district, and I would say it is. It has become an environment where taking a data-driven approach to advocacy is not just a nice to have. It's really a need to have in order to break through in this current environment. If there are companies that are still going out there with messages that they haven't, you know, put through the message testing process and things like that, it's really the time now to start doing those things.

Bryan DeAngelis:

Let me ask a quick follow-up on that. We talked about earlier corporations seeing their overall reputation fall down. Are you seeing folks who have maybe been in this game for a while know these rules or following these trends fluctuating the least? Or is it more industry driven versus kind of approach to Washington?

Rebecca Cunningham:

I think it's really interesting. One thing that we've seen is some of the more traditional industries are declining a little bit more and their reputation is softening. It's not big losses like we saw between 2023 and 2024, but the newer, flashier industries like fintech, like crypto, are seeing a little bit more of a surge in terms of reputation.

Bryan DeAngelis:

A positive surge. Yes, sorry, positive increase.

Rebecca Cunningham:

The industries that are doing quite effectively in Washington are coming and building relationships with policymakers. They're not just coming in with an ask. They're building those relationships so that when this incredibly moving and volatile environment changes that they already have those relationships, they already know who to call. So that's something that we're seeing. The newer industries are surging and improving their reputation, but we're cautiously optimistic that they're going to be able to build out that ground game as well to be able to engage with policymakers effectively, because that is what we've seen be the key for really long-term success. So a lot of those really established companies have that ground game that's already in place that, while they're seeing slight softening right now, will probably allow them to build back more effectively in the future.

Bryan DeAngelis:

Yeah, that's sort of what I was interested in. I don't have data to back this up, but just watching under since Trump took office, you know almost every industry is on the menu in some form or fashion. But those that understand Washington seem to be handling it a little better than maybe. You know not to name names, but like you think about the USAID fallout, you think about, you know, higher ed, they're not really playing the Washington game as much as maybe oil and gas or financial services or others, and seem to have felt that a little bit harsher.

Victoria Nolte:

Yeah, and you definitely, to your point, have some very steady hands here in town who have been effective in this incredibly crazy environment in which we find ourselves.

Victoria Nolte:

To that piece as well, I would add one of the things we're seeing despite the fact that we are in the most partisan environment that we've ever seen, most companies across the board either really strong with one party and then weak with the other, or vice versa.

Victoria Nolte:

Those that have been able to maintain a really high standard of effectiveness and influence in the past couple of years are, ironically, those that are the most bipartisan. I won't name names, but there is an association in our research that has been the number one most effective association for three years running, which is uncommon, because typically that top slot fluctuates pretty frequently. One of the things that they have made a key part of their identity is, regardless of the very partisan dynamics that are going on nationally and in Washington, we are going to continue to find ways to provide value and be a helpful partner to both sides of the aisle in a way that is not changing the message too much with one side or the other, but really staying at the core of who they are focusing in on. These are the communities that we serve and finding ways to be helpful to both Democrats and Republicans and for them. That has really driven them to be really effective and influential during both the Biden administration and now in Trump 2.0.

Bryan DeAngelis:

Great, I think we have time for one more, so maybe I'll just ask you know, on that last point, if there was one thing you would advise every company to do, what would that be?

Victoria Nolte:

was one thing you would advise every company to do. What would that be? This is going to be a big recommendation, but I have been talking with a lot of clients just around making sure we don't miss the forest for the trees. I think in the first six months and counting of the Trump administration, there were a lot of questions and still are around what's effective? What's helpful? How do we need to change our engagement? How do we tailor to break through to Republicans, given the trifecta that we're seeing in Washington? 2026 midterms are right around the corner. I think we're seeing some shifts in some key races at the even like city or governor level already, and so a lot of the conversations we've been having with clients and a lot of what I've been advising folks around is making sure that they're still able to be effective and breakthrough and are still building those relationships and still maintaining that credibility with the other side of the aisle as well.

Rebecca Cunningham:

To that point. We're seeing a lot of people try to fight individual fires as they come up. In this environment an individual tweet can skew an entire company's reputation and we're seeing a lot of clients try to essentially play whack-a-mole and try to get those as they come up and losing that longer term sight of trying to build that brand and presence in Washington, which ultimately will probably not cause as much of a allow as strong of a reputation going forward. Because just trying to fight individual fights without building that longer term presence and that longer term brand, independent of a corporate brand or national brand, won't allow the company to succeed longer term necessarily.

Victoria Nolte:

It's a key moment and a key inflection point for, I would say, any industry that might be controversial, but to really sit down and think through what is our brand and reputation long term and who are we as an industry, both broadly but then in specifically thinking about the Washington policymaking audience.

Ylan Mui:

This idea of political durability. We talked about it during the last podcast, but it keeps coming up because I think it's so incredibly important. Victoria, rebecca, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate you sharing a little bit of the Insights Reports and the work that you all have been doing, thank you. Thank you for having us To our listeners. You'll be able to find the full Washington Insights Report in our show notes and please remember to like and subscribe to our podcast wherever you get them, and follow us on Twitter or X at PentaGRP and on LinkedIn at PentaGroup. I'm your co-host, ilan, and, as always, thanks for listening to what's Up State.